ANJU DEVI Vs. TRILOCHAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the instant revision petition, petitioner-objector has challenged order dated 21st of December, 2018 passed by Addl. District Judge, Raisinghnagar (for short, 'learned executing Court') in Execution Case No.35/15. By the order impugned, learned executing Court has rejected objections of the petitioner under Order 21 Rule 36 and Sec. 47 CPC.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that respondent--decree-holders filed a suit for specific performance of contract against third respondent Girish Kumar pertaining to shop No.62 measuring 20 x 40.5 sq.ft. at Raisinghnagar. The agreement to sale was executed by third respondent Girish Kumar on the strength of Will dated 5 th of January, 2009 executed in his favour by his grandfather Onkarmal. During pendency of the suit, the parties entered into compromise and on the strength of compromise, the suit was decreed. When the decree was put to execution, on behalf of petitioner, objections were filed under Sec. 47 read with Order 21 Rule 36 CPC. In the application, the petitioner averred that shop in question was not exclusively owned by Onkarmal inasmuch as his two sons Purshottam and Leeladhar were having 1/3 rd share each in the property. It is also pleaded that petitioner has entered into agreement to sale of 1/3rd share each of Purshottam and Leeladhar from the disputed shop in the year 2017 and suit for specific performance of contract in this behalf is pending since the year 2018. With all these facts, the execution of the decree was resisted by urging that it is a collusive decree and therefore his rights cannot be defeated on the strength of such decree.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.